Reimagining bureaucracy? Enhancing the participation of children in vulnerable positions in law-making

Abstract

Children have the right to participate in public matters. While children’s participation has been widely studied in various fields, its realisation and conceptualisation in the specific context of law-making remains limited and under-examined. Law-making is typically shaped by bureaucratic procedures, which often result in the exclusion of children and young people. However, the growing emphasis on a ‘participatory turn’ suggests that citizens, including children, should be actively involved. This article explores the capabilities lawmakers need to enhance the participation of children in vulnerable positions in legislative processes. The study draws on interviews with 22 Finnish child welfare experts, analysed using thematic content analysis. The findings reveal that both external and internal capabilities are necessary for lawmakers to promote children’s participation. These capabilities include knowledge of children’s rights, practical know-how, and enabling structures. While bureaucracies have their strengths, lawmakers must break free from the ‘iron cages of bureaucracy’ and seek a better balance between bureaucratic processes and participatory practices to ensure the inclusion of children in vulnerable positions in law-making.

Keywords

bureaucracy capabilities approach children law-making participation

Introduction

Over the past few decades, amplifying the voices of children in vulnerable positions has become a central aim in child protection practices. This goal is supported by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989), where participation is not only the focus of Article 12 but also recognised as one of the Convention’s four general principles. Alongside international human rights agreements, national legislation governs not only child protection practices but also the processes of law-making. Within the context of the ‘participatory turn’, new capabilities have been called for in legislative practices to include citizens. The rationale is that involving citizens in knowledge production can mitigate their sense of alienation from government, fostering the perception of belonging and potentially leading to a more legitimate democratic society (Michels, 2011; Tholen, 2015).

Despite a substantial body of research on children’s participation in child protection practice (e.g. Kennan et al., 2018; Toros, 2021), studies focusing on the inclusion of children – especially vulnerable groups – during the legislative drafting process remain limited. Law-making is often perceived as a bureaucratic and technical practice, characterised by a lack of discretion, flexibility, or creativity required to engage citizens meaningfully (Tholen, 2015). This article addresses these tensions, seeking to identify opportunities to incorporate the voices of children in vulnerable positions into Finnish law-making practices. Our aim is to explore the capabilities required of lawmakers to enhance the participation of children in vulnerable positions in legislative processes. To achieve this, we employ the capabilities approach developed by Sen (1993) and further refined by Nussbaum (2011). While describing the perspectives of various child groups – particularly those in vulnerable positions – and analysing the capabilities required, we draw on data from 11 interviews with 22 child welfare experts. These interviews explore the state of Finnish law-making and the factors enabling or constraining children’s inclusion and participation. Using thematic content analysis, we aim to identify the capabilities needed to overcome these constraints and advance participatory practices.

Law-making as a bureaucratic practise

Legal systems vary in how legislation is defined and authorised. Nordic countries prioritise written statutes, common law traditions emphasise precedent, and Indigenous legal orders rely on community-based norms (Borrows, 2010; Zweigert and Kötz, 1998). These frameworks shape the institutional role of law-making in different ways. The term ‘legislation’ is often used to describe a bureaucratic practice. According to Max Weber, one of the classic scholars of sociology, modern bureaucracy is based on formal rationality and can be characterised as a pure type of legal authority. Weber posits that authority originates from the institution, which is typically hierarchical in structure. Institutions manage their assigned areas of work through employees hired based on their competence. However, the authority of these employees is impersonal, deriving not from personal qualities but from the dominance of the institution itself; individual bureaucrats are merely components of a larger ‘machine’ (Weber, 1978: 220–221, 956, 988). Weber further argues that in capitalist societies, the application of formal rationality and legal authority can result in an ‘iron cage’, where civil servants adhere strictly to bureaucratic principles, lacking creativity, personal discretion, or contextual flexibility. While later discussions on bureaucracies have shifted focus toward the individuals working within them, they continue to prioritise efficiency, one of Weber’s central arguments. Consequently, the needs, rights, and desires of people are often overlooked (Borry and Kempin Reuter, 2022).

Another influential sociologist, Jürgen Habermas, divided the process of drafting laws into different phases, each dominated by distinct discourses and agents. Habermas (1996) asserts that certain discourses, such as pragmatic ones at the beginning and judicial ones at the end of the process, are typically restricted to experts. Civil servants in ministries play a pivotal role in advancing legislative projects and are expected to work independently at both ends of the process. In the middle phase, however, negotiations among various interest groups – often political – are necessary to secure the legitimacy of laws (Habermas, 1996: 94–99, 167–168). For Habermas, drafting laws, or ‘rational political will formation’, is not merely about dogmatic jurisprudence or judicial discourse; it also involves gathering information, hearing diverse interest groups, organising procedurally regulated bargaining, and ensuring that laws align with the moral discourse of the community or society. This requires a wide range of skills and capabilities from those overseeing the drafting process.

As a Nordic welfare state Finland provides a robust framework for children’s rights and well-being, underpinned by extensive welfare policies and legal protections (e.g. Hakalehto, 2020; Koivunen et al., 2021), including the ratification of the UNCRC. In Finland, the relevant provision of the Constitution reflects Article 12 of the UNCRC, stating that children must be given the opportunity to influence matters concerning themselves in accordance with their level of development (The Constitution of Finland, 1999: Chapter 2, Section 3). Chapter 4 of the Child Welfare Act contains several provisions regarding the hearing of children, their right to be heard, and the clarification of their views within the context of individual and family-specific child welfare measures (Child Welfare Act 2007/417, Chapter 4, Sections 20–21), but these provisions do not extend to law drafting. Thus, while the Nordic model excels in establishing systems of support, it faces challenges in translating these rights into everyday participatory practices, particularly within bureaucratic processes such as law-making. Participation, in this context, must be understood not merely as a mechanism to foster a sense of belonging but as an inherently political act that empowers children as active societal agents. This perspective challenges existing power dynamics and underscores the need for more inclusive and democratic practices.

To address these challenges, the Finnish state has established guidelines to support high-standard law-making, including a process guide for drafting laws (Finlex, 2023b) and a guide for public consultations during the law-making process (Finlex, 2023a). The Ministry of Justice prescribes that relevant interest groups – defined as those affected by legislation or possessing relevant expertise – should be heard orally during the preparatory phase, with opportunities to submit written statements following the hearings (Finlex, 2023a). However, despite these standards, significant gaps between objectives and practice persist. A recent Finnish study highlights a lack of resources for legislative preparation, with fewer officials responsible for substantial workloads. This results in unrealistic deadlines and limited opportunities for meaningful consultation (Keinänen and Pajuoja, 2022: 24, 112–114, 117–118, 125, 242).

The capabilities approach, as developed by Sen (1993, 2009) and Nussbaum (2000, 2011), provides a flexible conceptual framework for addressing the challenges of inclusivity in law-making. Rather than focusing on resources themselves, this approach emphasises the functions and freedoms that resources enable when utilised effectively (Gupta et al., 2016). Widely applied in social work studies, the capabilities approach highlights goals such as social justice, human dignity, and well-being (Kjellberg and Jansson, 2022). At its core, the approach underscores individuals’ freedoms and opportunities to lead lives they value, positioning these capabilities as central to meaningful participation.

Nussbaum (2000, 2011) distinguishes between two types of capabilities: internal capabilities, which refer to personal skills, knowledge, and awareness, and external capabilities, which encompass the political, social, and economic contexts that enable or constrain individuals’ freedoms. While internal capabilities are necessary, they are insufficient on their own. For example, lawmakers must first recognise the importance of hearing and including children in the legislative process – a fundamental internal capability. However, without supportive organisational structures and systems, these internal capabilities cannot translate into meaningful action (Nussbaum, 2011). Thus, external capabilities, such as well-designed processes and adequate resources, are indispensable for ensuring children’s voices are heard and valued in law-making.

In addition, the capabilities approach views capabilities as a combination of choices and freedoms, empowering individuals to act in ways they find meaningful and desirable (Nussbaum, 2011; Nussbaum and Sen, 1993; Sen, 1993). Applying this framework to the context of bureaucratic law-making raises critical questions. Can this inherently rigid system gain enough flexibility to grant lawmakers discretion in their actions (Adler and Borys, 1996), or will they remain constrained within Weber’s ‘larger machine’ of impersonal authority (Weber, 1978)? Furthermore, while broader societal, cultural and organisational conversion factors are crucial (Ballet et al., 2011; Larkins et al., 2023) in the context of legislative work, it is still legitimate to ask whether lawmakers hold the values and objectives necessary to prioritise children’s participation. Addressing these questions requires a dual focus on strengthening individual capabilities and transforming organisational structures to support inclusive and participatory practices.

Children’s participation and capabilities

In this article, we extend this framework to governmental operations, specifically law-making, as it shares the same human rights-based ideals, such as children’s right to participation (Borry and Kempin Reuter, 2022). Interest in the capability approach has increased over the past 15 years (Gladstone et al., 2021) and, as we see it, it is particularly relevant for understanding children’s participation in law-making, because it shifts the focus from simply possessing competences or skills to having the actual capability to make choices and influence outcomes. For children, this means ensuring they have not only the space and opportunity to express their views but also the structural and procedural support to ensure those views carry weight in decision-making processes. This distinction between competences and capabilities is critical, as it highlights the systemic changes needed to enable meaningful participation.

Participation, from this perspective, is not a neutral or apolitical concept. Instead, it is deeply tied to democratic principles and the redistribution of power. Children’s participation in law-making represents a challenge to adult-centric systems and bureaucratic norms, demanding a re-evaluation of how authority and knowledge are distributed within these processes. As Lundy (2007) and Cuevas-Parra (2023) suggest, participation must encompass not only inclusion but also the ability to influence outcomes, which requires addressing the political and cultural barriers within organisational structures. In terms of law-making, we know that children’s participation is promoted through cultural and attitudinal change, adult commitment, professional competence, and institutional structures that recognise and respond to children’s voices (Day et al., 2015; Doel-Mackaway, 2019; Lundy, 2007; Stenvall et al., 2021; Tisdall, 2017)

Nussbaum (2011) stated that while various entitlements exist and should be protected, it is not always clear who is responsible for ensuring them. However, children’s right to participate is, in principle, a clear entitlement: national legislation and international agreements addressing this right extend worldwide. The most notable international agreement is the UNCRC (1989), which Finland ratified as early as 1991. Article 12 of the UNCRC stipulates that every child capable of forming their own views has the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting them. Additionally, these views must be given due weight according to the child’s age and maturity (UNCRC, 1989). Implementing the UNCRC, particularly Article 12, therefore requires that children have a say in public matters, including the drafting of laws. Moreover, the Finnish Constitution (731/1999, Section 14) guarantees individuals the right to influence decision-making in matters concerning them, without explicitly distinguishing between children and adults. Laura Lundy et al. (2013) argued that children’s rights are better protected in both law and practice when the UNCRC holds the status of law in a given state. In such cases, national systems for supporting and monitoring its implementation, as seen in Finland, are better organised.

Despite these frameworks, children often face challenges in realising their capabilities (Nussbaum, 2000, 2011). Significant global issues remain in implementing Article 12 of the UNCRC (e.g. McMellon and Tisdall, 2020). Lundy (2007) suggested that recognising children as competent in their own matters can be difficult for adults, as it challenges the perception of children as inherently vulnerable. Adult-led systems are generally not well-equipped to support children’s participation, and adults often fail to recognise the power dynamics between themselves and children. McMellon and Tisdall (2020) highlighted that while practices supporting children’s participation are emerging in various settings, they are often not sufficiently inclusive. Bureaucratic institutions, in particular, are rarely ideal environments for advancing children’s participation agendas. Participatory practices tend to be more prevalent at local levels, such as in child parliaments or youth councils, than at national levels. At the national level, children’s participation often takes the form of consultative events focusing on strategy development or action plans (Day et al., 2015: 42–43; 117–118). While some good practices exist, opportunities for children to participate in state-level law-making are limited, even in Finland, where interest in hearing children’s voices has been increasing (Stenvall et al., 2021).

In her seminal work, Lundy (2007) identified four elements necessary to implement Article 12 of the UNCRC: space, voice, audience, and influence. Space entails creating safe and inclusive environments where children’s views are actively sought, without overburdening the same groups of children. Voice recognises that all children, regardless of age or maturity, have something to contribute, though some may require assistance to express themselves. Audience refers to adults being trained to hear and interpret children’s voices, including non-verbal expressions. Influence ensures that children’s views lead to concrete actions wherever possible. Adults often act as gatekeepers, undermining children’s competencies and limiting their influence. Thus, empowering children requires shifting these perceptions.

Building on Lundy’s model, Cuevas-Parra (2023) proposed two additional layers to enhance participation: enabling environments and intersecting identities. While these factors are primarily external, intersecting identities also consider internal capabilities, which are individual resources rather than generalised group attributes. Since children’s needs vary, they require different resources to mobilise their capabilities (Nussbaum, 1992, 2011; Sen, 2009). Children involved in child protection measures, often lacking basic capabilities due to their marginalised positions in society, require greater societal support than those with more internal resources (Nussbaum, 2011).

Finally, Day et al. (2015: 145) argued that the most effective way to promote children’s participation is through cultural change, raising awareness through education, and supporting implementation and monitoring efforts. These factors can be understood, within the capability approach, as cultural and societal conversion factors that shape the extent to which children can actually realise their participatory capabilities (Ballet et al., 2011; Larkins et al., 2023). Finland has sought to address existing barriers to participation through its National Child Strategy (Valtioneuvosto Finnish Government, 2021), which underscores children’s rights to be heard and informed. The Finnish handbook on hearing children in law-drafting provides practical guidance, emphasising the importance of simplicity in hearing practices, respectful engagement, openness to children’s ideas, and honesty about the real scope for influence (Stenvall et al., 2021). However, it remains to be seen whether these strategies and guidelines will effectively support children’s participation at the national level.

Methodology: Questions, data and method

This paper is part of a larger research consortium initiative in which five research teams simultaneously studied the participation of various ‘silent agents’ in law-making. Our team focused on children, particularly those involved in child protection measures. In this paper, we ask what kinds of capabilities are required from lawmakers to enable the inclusion and participation of children in law-making, especially those in vulnerable positions. The analysis is situated within the framework of moderate social constructionism, where language and interaction are understood as constructing reality, while both material and immaterial contexts are also considered. Consequently, we chose to gather data through personal and focus group interviews, facilitating the co-construction of knowledge (Alastalo et al., 2017). This approach highlights how discourse emerges from the interaction between interviewees and interviewers.

Our data consist of 11 expert interviews. The interviews were collected at the early stage of the research project, where the team wanted to become acquainted with the topic, gather the views of key national experts and start preparing the interviews with children in child protection measures, here asking them about the practices of law-making. The interviewees were recruited from organisations that had committed to the consortium during the funding application phase. This work package, focused on child protection, included the most significant national organisations and their key experts. The sample comprised three ministries or their subordinate agencies, five major child protection NGOs, and three publicly funded organisations specialising in child protection research and development. This group can be considered nationally representative, as it included all major actors typically involved in child protection legislation. The organisations were asked to nominate key individuals with expertise in child protection and legislative processes. In total, 22 experts participated, including five men. Most held senior management, development, or other significant expert roles, typically with qualifications in law or social sciences, suggesting an older age profile, although age was not directly recorded.

The study adhered to the ethical guidelines set by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK, 2019). Detailed information about the research project was provided to participants, who were informed of the voluntary nature of their involvement and gave their informed consent prior to being interviewed. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw at any time, the secure data storage and processing practices, and the measures taken to ensure that no individuals or organisations would be identifiable in published materials.

The interviews were conducted between May and June 2021 by one or two team members, depending on the session. Some interviews were conducted one-on-one, while others were small-group interviews with participants from the same organisation or with similar professional roles. The primary aim of the interviews was to gather insights on the current state of children’s participation in law-making, particularly for children involved in child protection services. We deemed the early stages of the project an appropriate context for conducting these exploratory interviews, given the experts’ diverse knowledge of a relatively underexplored phenomenon (Alastalo et al., 2017; Bogner et al., 2009). Additionally, the interviews served an innovative purpose by generating ideas for a concrete model for hearing children during the law-drafting process. This model was piloted, with the findings published later in 2021 (Stenvall et al., 2021).

All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic content analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006). The analysis identified three main themes related to the internal and external capabilities (Nussbaum, 2011) that lawmakers require to include underage children in legislative processes. Lawmakers, viewed as bureaucratic officers, are assumed to possess some individual discretion in choosing how they act (Nussbaum, 2011; Sen, 1993). The first theme concerns the need for bureaucratic officers to shift their attitudes towards children’s knowledge and rights. The second theme focuses on the methods and know-how necessary for including children in law-making. The final theme addresses enabling structures and resources, which are critical for facilitating children’s inclusion. These themes are discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

Results

Our analysis identified three thematic clusters of capabilities required from lawmakers to consider children’s views in law-making processes in alignment with the UNCRC and national legislation. First, experts highlighted the importance of internal capabilities, such as a change in attitudes and a comprehensive understanding of children’s rights, as fundamental prerequisites for ensuring that hearing children is not a random occurrence but a regular practice. Second, practical know-how and concrete methods for hearing and including underage children from diverse groups were identified as essential. Third, external capabilities, such as enabling structures and facilitating resources, were deemed necessary to ensure that children could effectively participate in law-making processes.

Internal capabilities: Attitude change towards children’s voice, knowledge and rights

In general, the experts agreed that the current culture of Finnish law-making does not adequately support the inclusion and participation of children. They described the entire law-making process as inherently bureaucratic: stable in nature, conducted with familiar partners and interest groups, and only recently beginning to explore the inclusion of citizens – let alone children from diverse backgrounds.

In the interviews, experts raised critical questions about children’s knowledge: What constitutes children’s knowledge, and how does it compare to other types of knowledge? Is knowledge produced by children valued enough to warrant the development and application of specific methods, even if this poses challenges? The experts emphasised that lawmakers require greater awareness of children’s rights, particularly in understanding what participation truly entails and what is needed to implement these ideas effectively. Lawmakers should rethink these issues and tap into their creativity and innovative potential to involve children in their daily work. This inclusion would necessitate extra effort, especially when reaching out to children in the most vulnerable positions. New methods and flexible procedures would be needed to create safe and meaningful opportunities for participation. As one interviewee noted:

– – if you want to include all children, it requires more effort to reach them. The willingness to include all children is not enough, because there are groups of children living in diverse circumstances who require extra effort to reach. You also need to create safe and meaningful situations for them. (I3S3)

The experts also argued that governmental officers need to fundamentally shift their attitudes towards including and engaging with children. Children should not be viewed merely as ‘cute’ but as individuals whose opinions genuinely matter (Hart, 1992; Toros, 2021). For example, when children participate in events, they are often not treated as experts, and unlike adults, they are rarely compensated for their contributions. Moreover, adults frequently assume that children do not require special accommodations when participating alongside adults, expecting them to read the same material provided to adult experts. Thus, children should, on the one hand, be treated as equals to adults and, on the other hand, recognised as a unique group requiring tailored support to facilitate their inclusion and participation.

Some experts suggested that the issue is less about children’s invisibility or individual attitudes and more about systemic constraints, such as a lack of resources and appropriate methods for law-making. These external capabilities are discussed in other sections; however, in the context of internal capabilities, the willingness of a single individual to act differently can sometimes lead to meaningful change:

Sometimes, it can come down to a single officer to start doing things differently. It can be justified as part of our official duty as civil servants. (I9S1)

Internal capabilities: Know-how and methods

Beyond possessing the right attitudes to facilitate children’s participation, the interviewees highlighted the need for specific know-how (Lundy, 2007) among lawmakers to include children in law-drafting processes. This know-how is considered an internal capability, as it can be acquired and developed over the course of a lawmaker’s career. According to the experts, lawmakers must have a comprehensive understanding of the fields where laws are applied. This knowledge is critical for identifying where and how to reach the most relevant individuals during the drafting process. Additionally, a diverse range of inclusive methods is essential, as lawmakers must engage with various child groups for differing reasons:

– – sometimes, it feels a bit unreasonable because there are plenty of things to be considered in drafting laws, not only strict timelines. I can recognise that it is difficult; it is challenging; there should be enough time to include and participate in all interest groups, and above all, it requires time and consideration of the forms of participation and hearing. All those traditional ways (to hear) we apply in law-drafting processes aren’t good for all of those we would like to hear; we should be openly reconsidering new kinds of methods. (I11S3)

The experts provided examples of existing participatory methods, such as the web-based service lausuntopalvelu.fi (statement service), which is an established tool for collecting written opinions. However, they also acknowledged its limitations, noting that it is not suitable for all contexts. Adults and children often communicate using different languages and methods, raising the question of whether children should always be expected to adapt and learn new ways of participation. The experts argued that it is adults, particularly lawmakers, who should take on a more active role in developing and adopting methods to engage with children and understand the knowledge they produce.

Thus, the development of diverse methods for hearing children is crucial, particularly for reaching groups in the most vulnerable positions. For instance, lawmakers often rely on individuals from experts by experience groups to provide insights whenever a service user perspective is needed. While these groups are valuable, they cannot meet all the needs of lawmakers. Therefore, supplementary methods are required to complement these ‘representative’ practices. The experts also underscored the importance of ethical considerations in developing participatory methods:

Finally, I want to emphasise that, in addition to developing methods, lawmakers’ know-how must be strengthened to ensure that children and young people are heard in an ethically sustainable way. It’s a kind of ‘permanent swamp of tasks’ that I deal with. How do you do it in a way that truly respects children’s and young people’s rights? (I11S2)

In summary, the experts recognised that drafting laws is an inherently challenging task involving numerous considerations. Including children in these processes adds further complexity, requiring lawmakers to expand their skills and methods to meet these new demands. While attitudinal change primarily concerns giving children a voice, know-how and methodological competence are more closely related to the notion of audience, as defined by Lundy (2007), referring to adults being trained to hear and interpret children’s voices, including non-verbal expressions. True child-centred law-making requires not only formal inclusion but also developing the representational skills of adults, especially in marginalised contexts. Participation training should involve children themselves, enhancing both legitimacy and effectiveness by ensuring their voices are truly understood (Thomas and Percy-Smith, 2012).

External capabilities: Enabling organisational structures and conversion factors

In addition to internal capabilities, lawmakers require external capabilities, shaped by conversion factors such as institutional support and available resources (Cuevas-Parra, 2023; Larkins et al., 2023), to promote children’s inclusion effectively. A single law-making officer cannot easily act against existing structures that fail to facilitate inclusive participation. Without adequate resources, children’s participation in law-making becomes extremely difficult, if not impossible. According to the experts, three critical ‘pain points’ in the current bureaucratic law-making processes hinder children’s inclusion: (1) the absence of structured procedures for involving children, (2) insufficient resources and personnel to perform the necessary work, and (3) strict and inflexible schedules. One expert summarised these challenges:

– – I would say that a lack of resources and time are the biggest problems. Another issue I would like to emphasise is the absence of a culture or procedures for hearing and participating children in law-making. There are many factors behind this – – (I1S1)

Law-making in Finland follows a highly structured process, largely defined by the governmental policy/programme, which outlines the types of legislation to be drafted during each 4-year parliamentary period. This rigid structure leaves little room for evaluating planned legislation or incorporating input from diverse groups during the legislative process. Experts suggested that investing more time in the evaluation phase of law-making could reduce the need for subsequent corrections or revisions to legislation. However, the process remains notably strict and inflexible, with preparation and hearing schedules dictated by ministries and their leadership. One expert described the hierarchical nature of the system:

Ministries are offices where the minister is THE boss. It depends on a minister, but if s/he says the clauses must be ready next Friday; well, they will be ready then, that is the timeline, and there is nothing more you can say about it. (I7S2)

Some experts proposed that children’s closest adults, such as parents or caregivers, could serve as intermediaries, listening to children’s ideas and opinions and relaying them to lawmakers. However, this approach presents significant limitations. For example, when ministries request statements from NGOs, the deadlines are often so tight that NGOs cannot consult their clients, including children, within the given timeframe. Furthermore, efforts to involve underage children in such tight schedules raise ethical concerns, as meaningful participation requires planning and time. Children themselves need time to process their thoughts and ideas, which is incompatible with the rigid timelines typically imposed. As one expert explained:

– – schedule is extremely limited; these kinds of requests come in a very late, and they are also highly complicated. We, as the experts, face significant challenges in finding enough time – let alone involving children. (I3S2)

Reaching children from diverse groups requires even more time than usual, particularly when trying to engage children placed in child protection, such as those living in foster families. Existing structures to reach these children are limited, creating additional barriers to their inclusion.

Finally, experts suggested that lawmakers need structures and resources to integrate different types of knowledge when drafting laws. While direct hearings are ideal, they are not always feasible. Alternative sources of knowledge, such as scientific research or material gathered by NGOs, can be valuable. Finnish NGOs, for instance, have collected extensive data from clients, including children and parents involved in child protection services, which could inform law-making. However, experts pointed out that NGOs currently bear significant responsibility and wield considerable power in deciding who is heard. This dynamic exists because lawmakers lack systematic structures for engaging with different groups themselves and underscores the need to critically assess institutional constraints that shape participation practices across both state and non-state actors. However, NGO-led processes may reproduce adult-centric or developmental framings of participation, rather than support genuinely child-led practices (e.g. Balagopalan, 2023).

Discussion

In this article, we explored the capabilities lawmakers require to enhance children’s inclusion and participation in law-making practices. By utilising the capabilities approach (Ballet et al., 2011; Gladstone et al., 2021; Larkins et al., 2023), we examined both internal and external capabilities that may enable or constrain efforts to promote children’s participation, particularly for those in vulnerable positions, such as children involved in child protection measures. To address our research question, we conducted 11 interviews with 22 Finnish child welfare experts between May and June 2021

Our findings suggest broad agreement among experts that the current law-making system is bureaucratic, inflexible, and adult-led. While practices to promote children’s inclusion and participation have advanced significantly in social work over the past two decades, law-making remains a ‘blind spot’. Based on our analysis, children’s rights to be heard on public matters that concern them are not realised within the current system. Beyond the intrinsic importance of rights realisation, including children in law-making can be practically beneficial. For instance, in Australia, Indigenous children emphasised that their participation in law-making contributed to the development of more culturally relevant and appropriate legislation and policies (Doel-Mackaway, 2019).

To fulfil the requirements of children’s rights as defined in the UNCRC and national legislation, both internal and external capabilities are essential. Our analysis identified three thematic clusters of capabilities lawmakers require. First, lawmakers, as individuals, must possess the internal capability to understand children’s rights and the importance of promoting them. While some lawmakers may demonstrate such awareness and willingness to act differently, our findings suggest that many lack sufficient knowledge about children’s rights and fail to recognise children’s voice (Lundy, 2007) the value of children’s self-generated knowledge. This aligns with the capabilities approach, which highlights the need for resources to support individual action (Nussbaum, 1992, 2000). Even when external capabilities are lacking and organisational conversion factors are unfavourable, lawmakers with strong internal capabilities may still attempt to include children in the process.

Second, lawmakers need specific know-how to collect and interpret information from children. This includes skills for consulting and hearing children, as well as knowledge of methods tailored for such contexts, in other words, audience (Lundy, 2007). Moreover, children’s participation must be conducted ethically, which requires specialised understanding and skills. While internal capabilities are crucial, external capabilities, such as structured processes and adequate resources, are equally necessary to enable meaningful inclusion. Time constraints, in particular, were identified as a decisive external conversion factor (Ballet et al., 2011; Larkins et al., 2023) limiting children’s participation. As one expert noted, reversing Benjamin Franklin’s famous adage, ‘money is time’ – adequate resourcing is required to dedicate more hands to the task of hearing children. Finally, the organisational culture within law-making institutions must support children’s inclusion. Bureaucratic systems prioritise outcomes and often minimise the time spent on interactions with individuals (Pascoe et al., 2023). In such systems, actualising children’s rights is inherently challenging. Addressing this issue may require rethinking whether the bureaucratic system itself needs to be displaced to make meaningful participation possible.

Adopting a more political and rights-based perspective on participation requires rethinking the bureaucratic structures that prioritise predictability over inclusivity. Participation, as an inherently political act, challenges the adult-centric and hierarchical nature of bureaucratic systems, requiring a re-evaluation of how authority and knowledge are distributed. International examples, such as Australia’s culturally tailored legislative processes for Indigenous children, demonstrate that integrating participatory practices into existing structures can balance structural predictability with democratic inclusivity (Doel-Mackaway, 2019).

From the perspective of the Nordic welfare state, this tension between bureaucratic predictability and inclusivity is particularly salient. The Nordic model emphasises universalism, equity, and collective responsibility, providing a framework for promoting participatory practices (e.g. Hakalehto, 2020; Koivunen et al., 2021). However, as our findings suggest, even within the Finnish context, the structures and processes of law-making have yet to fully integrate these values. Children’s participation in law-making reflects the broader ethos of the Nordic welfare state but requires additional structural and procedural adaptations to ensure inclusivity. By aligning participatory practices with the Nordic commitment to social justice and inclusion, lawmakers could transform bureaucratic constraints into opportunities for democratic engagement.

The capabilities approach has a strong connection to the human rights agenda (Nussbaum, 2011). By prioritising values such as participation, inclusion, and non-discrimination, both individual well-being and organisational structures can improve (Borry and Kempin Reuter, 2022; de Vries, 2000; Gupta et al., 2016). Lawmakers should have opportunities to develop their thinking and act accordingly. Breaking out of the ‘Weberian iron cages’ requires lawmakers to utilise their internal capabilities, which in turn can drive changes in external capabilities.

From a Weberian perspective, however, participation presents challenges. The ‘participatory turn’ undermines the predictability of operations, making decision-making more uncertain. Bureaucracies excel at reducing uncertainty (Gajduschek, 2003; Tholen, 2015), but their displacement risks shifting priorities. For instance, bureaucratic experts may need to prioritise facilitation skills over technical expertise, potentially weakening the organisation’s substantive competence. Furthermore, establishing an organised system for inclusion risks adding yet another bureaucratic layer (Tholen, 2015).

Therefore, integrating participation into public decision-making requires careful consideration. While participation can lead to inefficiencies or unintended problems, children’s rights must still be realised. Achieving this requires new ways of thinking and acting within governmental practices, including law-making. Both internal and external capabilities are necessary. Drawing on human rights-based approaches and lessons from social work practices may offer a pathway to more inclusive practices. Ultimately, the goal should be to strike a balance between informed decision-making, predictability, and avoiding the pitfalls of routinisation and bureaucratic dominance (Tholen, 2015).

Footnotes

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was funded by Academy of Finland, The Strategic Research Council, Grants 335656/2020, 335442/2020, 353971/2022 and 358266/2023.

Ethical approval and informed consent statements

The study adhered to the ethical guidelines set by the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity (TENK).

ORCID iDs

Essi Julin

Timo Harrikari

References

Adler

Borys

(1996) Two types of bureaucracy: Enabling and coercive. Administrative Science Quarterly 41(1): 61–89.

Alastalo

Åkerman

Vaittinen

(2017) Asiantuntijahaastattelu [Expert interviewing]. In: Hyvärinen

Nikander

Ruusuvuori

(eds) Tutkimushaastattelun käsikirja [Handbook of Research Interviewing]. Tampere: Vastapaino, pp.214−232.

Balagopalan

(2023) Theorizing ‘difference’. In: Balagopalan

Wall

Wells

(eds) The Bloomsbury Handbook of Theories in Childhood Studies. New York: Bloomsbury Academic, pp.44–49.

Ballet

Biggeri

Comim

(2011) Children’s agency and the capability approach: A conceptual framework. In: Ballet

Biggeri

Comin

(eds) Children and the Capability Approach. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.22–45.

Bogner

Littig

Menz

(2009) Interviewing Experts. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Borrows

(2010) Canada’s Indigenous Constitution. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.

Borry

Kempin Reuter

(2022) Humanizing bureaucracy: Applying the human-rights based approach to Weber’s bureaucracy. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance 5(2): 164–173.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Cuevas-Parra

(2023) Multi-dimensional lens to article 12 of the UNCRC: A model to enhance children’s participation. Children’s Geographies 21(3): 363−377.

10.

Day

Percy-Smith

Ruxton

, et al (2015) Evaluation on Legislation, Policy and Practice on Child Participation in the European Union (EU). Final Report. Brussels: European Union. Available at: https://eurochild.org/uploads/2021/01/Evaluation_of_legislation__policy_and_practice_of_child_participation_in_the_European_Union.pdf (accessed 20 November 2023).

11.

de Vries

(2000) The bureaucratization of participation. International Review of Administrative Sciences 66(2): 325–348.

12.

Doel-Mackaway

(2019) “Ask us. . . This is our country”: Designing laws and policies with aboriginal children and young people. International Journal of Children’s Rights 27(1): 31–65.

13.

Finlex (2023a) Säädösvalmistelun kuulemisopas Guide to Hearing People in Legislative Drafting. Available at: http://kuulemisopas.finlex.fi/ (accessed 20 November 2023).

14.

Finlex (2023b) Legislative Drafting Process Guide. Available at: http://lainvalmistelu.finlex.fi/en (accessed 20 November 2023).

15.

Gajduschek

(2003) Bureaucracy: Is it efficient? Is it not? Uncertainty reduction: An ignored element of bureaucratic rationality. Administration & Society 34(6): 700–723.

16.

Gladstone

Exenberger

Weimand

, et al (2021). The capability approach in research about children and childhood: A scoping review. Child Indicators Research 14(1): 453–475.

17.

Gupta

Featherstone

White

(2016) Reclaiming humanity: From capacities to capabilities in understanding parenting in adversity. British Journal of Social Work 46(2): 339−354.

18.

Habermas

(1996) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy ( Rehg

, trans.). Cambridge, MA: Polity Press. (Original work published 1992.)

19.

Hakalehto

(2020) Constitutional protection of children’s rights in Finland. In: Haugli

Nylund

Sigurdsen

, et al. (eds) Children’s Constitutional Rights in the Nordic Countries. London: Brill, pp.58–82.

20.

Hart

(1992) Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship (Innocenti Essay No. 4). Florence: UNICEF.

21.

Keinänen

Pajuoja

(2022) Miten tehdään hyvä laki? [How to Draft a Good Law?] Helsinki: Tietosanoma.

22.

Kennan

Brady

Forkan

(2018) Supporting children’s participation in decision making: A systematic literature review exploring the effectiveness of participatory processes. The British Journal of Social Work 48(7): 1985−2002.

23.

Kjellberg

Jansson

(2022) The capability approach in social work research: A scoping review of research addressing practical social work. International Social Work 65(2): 224−239.

24.

Koivunen

Ojala

Holmén

(eds) (2021) The Nordic Economic, Social and Political Model: Challenges in the 21st Century. London: Routledge.

25.

Larkins

del Moral-Espín

Stoecklin

(2023). Understanding children’s participation using the capability approach. In: Percy-Smith

Thomas

O’Kane

, et al. (eds) A Handbook of Children and Young People’s Participation. London: Routledge, pp.230–236.

26.

Lundy

(2007) Voice is not enough: Conceptualising article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33(6): 927–942.

27.

Lundy

Kilkelly

Byrne

(2013) Incorporation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in law: A comparative review. International Journal of Children’s Rights 21(3): 442–463.

28.

McMellon

Tisdall

EKM

(2020) Children and young people’s participation rights: Looking backwards and moving forward. International Journal of Children’s Rights 28(1): 157–182.

29.

Michels

(2011) Innovations in democratic governance: How does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy? International Review of Administrative Sciences 77(2): 275–293.

30.

Nussbaum

(1992) Human functioning and social justice: In defense of Aristotelian essentialism. Political Theory 20(2): 202–246.

31.

Nussbaum

(2000) Women’s capabilities and social justice. Journal of Human Development 1(2): 219–247.

32.

Nussbaum

(2011) Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

33.

Nussbaum

Sen

(eds) (1993) The Quality of Life. London: Clarendon Press.

34.

Pascoe

Waterhouse-Bradley

McGinn

(2023) Social workers’ experience on bureaucracy: A systematic synthesis of qualitative studies. British Journal of Social Work 53(1): 513–533.

35.

Sen

(1993) Capability and well-being. In: Nussbaum

Sen

(eds) The Quality of Life. London: Clarendon Press, pp.30–53.

36.

Sen

(2009) The Idea of Justice. New York: Penguin Books.

37.

Stenvall

Tiitinen

Saarinen

, et al (2021) Lasten kuulemisen käsikirja lainvalmistelijoille [Handbook for Law Drafters on Hearing the Views of Children]. London: Prime Minister’s Office.

38.

TENK (2019) The Ethical Principles of Research with Human Participants and Ethical Review in the Human Sciences in Finland: Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK Guidelines 2019 (Finnish National Board on Research Integrity TENK Publications 3/2019). Available at: https://tenk.fi/sites/default/files/2021-01/Ethical_review_in_human_sciences_2020.pdf (accessed 27 November 2023).

39.

The Constitution of Finland (1999) The Constitution of Finland (731/1999, adopted 11 June). Available at: https://www.finlex.fi/api/media/statute-foreign-language-translation/240375/mainPdf/main.pdf?timestamp=1999-06-11T00%3A00%3A00.000Z (accessed 24 August 2025).

40.

Thomas

Percy-Smith

(2012) ‘It’s about changing services and building relationships’: Evaluating the development of Children in Care Councils. Child and Family Social Work 17(4): 487–496.

41.

Tholen

(2015) Citizen participation and bureaucratization: The participatory turn seen through a Weberian lens. International Review of Administrative Sciences 81(3): 585–603.

42.

Tisdall

EKM

(2017) Conceptualising children and young people’s participation: Examining vulnerability, social accountability and co-production. The International Journal of Human Rights 21(1): 59–75.

43.

Toros

(2021) A systematic review of children’s participation in child protection decision-making: Tokenistic presence or not? Children & Society 35(3): 395−411.

44.

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) (1989) Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child (accessed 20 November 2023).

45.

Valtioneuvosto [Finnish Government] (2021) Kansallisen lapsistrategian toimeenpanosuunnitelma. Valtioneuvoston periaatepäätös [Implementation plan for the National Child Strategy. Government resolution]. Helsinki: Valtioneuvoston julkaisuja Publications of the Finnish Government; 2021:81. Available at: https://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/bitstream/handle/10024/163541/VN_2021_81.pdf?sequence=4&isAllowed=y (accessed 20 November 2023).

46.

Weber

(1978) Economy & Society. An Outline of Interpretive Sociology ( Roth

Wittich

, eds). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. (Original work published 1968.)

47.

Zweigert

Kötz

(1998) An Introduction to Comparative Law, 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.